‘Rosalind English talks to Marina Wheeler QC about how the civil courts are approaching radicalisation, the practical problems of introducing the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act, and the role of the family courts in protecting children under the “Prevent” strategy.’

Approving a package of support suggested by the local authority, the court identified the range and scope of support available for a radicalised child approaching the end of their wardship, compared with that available to a child who was instead leaving care, before observing that this may be one of many factors to be bourne in mind when considering which legal framework is most appropriate to protect a young person in danger of radicalisation (paras 12–64, 65–68).

‘Theresa May has declared she is prepared to rip up human rights laws to impose new restrictions on terror suspects, as she sought to gain control over the security agenda just 36 hours before the polls open.’

‘The human rights group Cage is preparing to mount a legal challenge to UK anti-terrorism legislation over a refusal to hand over mobile and laptop passwords to border control officials at air terminals, ports and international rail stations.’

‘After Brexit, the public face of criminal justice will look much the same as it does now. The UK has resisted many of the European Union’s moves towards harmonisation of substantive criminal law and procedure, and it is unlikely to use its new-found freedom from the restraints of EU law to decriminalise things like child pornography, cybercrime and people trafficking. The EU’s greatest impact on criminal justice has been through the multiple agreements and instruments that facilitate the detection, investigation and prosecution of such crimes as terrorism, people trafficking, child pornography, drug-smuggling, cybercrime and fraud across the EU. The best known of these is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), implemented in 2004.’

‘A 17-year-old boy whose two older brothers were killed “waging jihad” in Syria is to be protected by a special care plan designed to keep him from following in their footsteps, the high court has been told.’

‘S 43 Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (Freedom of speech in universities, polytechnics and colleges) requires “Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government” of further and higher education institutions to “take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured” for staff, students and visiting speakers. The institutions must ensure, “so far as is reasonably practicable”, that use of the premises is not denied to anyone on any ground connected with their beliefs, views, policy or objectives. On the other hand, the Prevent duty in s 26 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 requires specified authorities – including relevant higher education bodies – to have due regard in the exercise of their functions to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.’

‘Amber Rudd has called for the police and intelligence agencies to be given access to WhatsApp and other encrypted messaging services to thwart future terror attacks, prompting opposition politicians and civil liberties groups to say her demand was unrealistic and disproportionate.’

‘“General and indiscriminate retention” of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU’s highest court has ruled, in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK’s new Investigatory Powers Act – the so-called snooper’s charter.’

‘Nearly one in three school leaders (31%) have reported an increase in the number of applications for term-time absences since a landmark High Court ruling in May this year, a survey by law firm Browne Jacobson has found.’

‘When does the state have the right to interfere in family life on the basis of radical views held by family members? Damian Woodward-Carlton reports on the inherent difficulties arising in the family courts.’

‘A counter-terrorism bill including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalise young people is to be included in the Queen’s speech, David Cameron will tell the national security council on Wednesday.’

‘A criminal suspect can’t be forced to divulge their phone passcode, a US circuit court judge ruled in October 2014. Yet law enforcement officials can compel a suspect to provide a fingerprint – which they can then use to unlock the phone and obtain data which may prove the case against them.’